Abolishing the gun industry is not practical, but a compromise on the types of guns available for consumer purchase, and their accessibility, is necessary to save lives.
"it is a weapon of war that if used for hunting would desecrate the deer so badly it would not be salvageable."
Hannah, if you're going to use this claim as a load-bearing part of your argument then you need to substantiate it. Things to consider:
a. Why is the AR-15 unsuitable for hunting? Many Americans hunt with AR pattern rifles. Are they ignorant of best practices or are you missing something?
b. Is deer hunting the only legitimate reason to own firearms? What about other forms of hunting e.g. varmints? You mention self-defence but have you considered shooting sports? AR pattern rifles dominate competitive shooting.
c. Your point about hearing conservation and home defence is poorly formed. All firearms cause hearing damage without personal protective equipment (though some weapon+suppressor+ammunition combos are hearing safe). Risk of tinnitus vs risk of death is not a compelling tradeoff when things go bump in the night.
Basically, the way you've written this betrays a lack of rigor, or even basic familiarity with firearms. This won't be an obstacle if you're preaching to the managerial class in Vancouver or Toronto, but nobody in a "gun culture" will be convinced.
The First Amendment is not about hunting, it’s all about defense of one’s person, family and nation. And what part of “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is unclear of incomprehensible?
What you should be promoting are the goals of better firearm storage and safety training, not the unobtainable objective of banning weapons you have been told are “weapons of war” (which is a silly term). Children will be much safer that way.
"it is a weapon of war that if used for hunting would desecrate the deer so badly it would not be salvageable."
Hannah, if you're going to use this claim as a load-bearing part of your argument then you need to substantiate it. Things to consider:
a. Why is the AR-15 unsuitable for hunting? Many Americans hunt with AR pattern rifles. Are they ignorant of best practices or are you missing something?
b. Is deer hunting the only legitimate reason to own firearms? What about other forms of hunting e.g. varmints? You mention self-defence but have you considered shooting sports? AR pattern rifles dominate competitive shooting.
c. Your point about hearing conservation and home defence is poorly formed. All firearms cause hearing damage without personal protective equipment (though some weapon+suppressor+ammunition combos are hearing safe). Risk of tinnitus vs risk of death is not a compelling tradeoff when things go bump in the night.
Basically, the way you've written this betrays a lack of rigor, or even basic familiarity with firearms. This won't be an obstacle if you're preaching to the managerial class in Vancouver or Toronto, but nobody in a "gun culture" will be convinced.
The First Amendment is not about hunting, it’s all about defense of one’s person, family and nation. And what part of “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is unclear of incomprehensible?
What you should be promoting are the goals of better firearm storage and safety training, not the unobtainable objective of banning weapons you have been told are “weapons of war” (which is a silly term). Children will be much safer that way.